Who was the third best player in the 2000s (2000-2009) behind Fedal?

[SystemicAnomaly]

Roddick isn't better than Safin
2 slams > 1 slam

More of the story (cont from my prev post)...

Roddick went deep at the slams more often than Safin in singles. 5 Finals with 5 more SFs for Andy. (4 of those slam finals vs peak Federer). Compared to 4 Finals + 3 more SFs for Marat.

Roddick fared a bit better in Masters 1000s as well. They both won 5 M1000 events but Andy reached more finals than Marat. And 4 of Marat's finals, where he won 3 of his 5 M titles, came at the Paris Masters.

Paris, with a small draw of 48, usually represents less (somewhat weaker) competition than the other Masters 1000 events. Draws for these other events are typically 64 or 96 (and, at least, 56).

Roddick ahead 4-3 in h2h vs Safin. Safin won their 2004 AO final in 5 sets. Roddick won their 2007 AO final in 4 sets. A-Rod won their 2004 IW meeting in straights.

 

[FD3S]

More of the story (cont from my prev post)...

Roddick went deep at the slams more often than Safin in singles. 5 Finals with 5 more SFs for Andy. (4 of those slam finals vs peak Federer). Compared to 4 Finals + 3 more SFs for Marat.

Roddick fared a bit better in Masters 1000s as well. They both won 5 M1000 events but Andy reached more finals than Marat. And 4 of Marat's finals, where he won 3 of his 5 M titles, came at the Paris Masters.

Paris, with a small draw of 48, usually represents less (somewhat weaker) competition than the other Masters 1000 events. Draws for these other events are typically 64 or 96 (and, at least, 56).

Roddick ahead 4-3 in h2h vs Safin. Safin won their 2004 AO final in 5 sets. Roddick won their 2007 AO final in 4 sets. A-Rod won their 2004 IW meeting in straights.

He also took their Houston match-up in two tiebreak sets, fantastic power hitting from both guys with Roddick having the slight edge overall (as reflected by the scoreline).

 

[Donk]

More of the story (cont from my prev post)...

Roddick went deep at the slams more often than Safin in singles. 5 Finals with 5 more SFs for Andy. (4 of those slam finals vs peak Federer). Compared to 4 Finals + 3 more SFs for Marat.

Roddick fared a bit better in Masters 1000s as well. They both won 5 M1000 events but Andy reached more finals than Marat. And 4 of Marat's finals, where he won 3 of his 5 M titles, came at the Paris Masters.

Paris, with a small draw of 48, usually represents less (somewhat weaker) competition than the other Masters 1000 events. Draws for these other events are typically 64 or 96 (and, at least, 56).

Roddick ahead 4-3 in h2h vs Safin. Safin won their 2004 AO final in 5 sets. Roddick won their 2007 AO final in 4 sets. A-Rod won their 2004 IW meeting in straights.

Yes yes. let's just skate over the fact Safin was horrendously out of his prime and playing crap from all of those injuries in 2007. Hardly a fair fight was it?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Yes yes. let's just skate over the fact Safin was horrendously out of his prime and playing crap from all of those injuries in 2007. Hardly a fair fight was it?

Skating. I love skating. But not been able to do it for quite some time. Seriously bad hip. Need a new one (titanium).

Roddick also suffered from a number of injuries in 2007. Hamstring, hamstring, hamstring, knee and shoulder, I believe. Overall, Safin may have been on the DL with injuries a bit more than Roddick. But Marat also suffered from (mental) focus issues. He had quite a reputation for partying with his buds and with womanizing. ARod may have indulged a bit -- but not close to the extent that Marat did.

Safin was a major factor on the pro tour from late 2000 to early 2005 (January). With an extended break in 2003 (missed RG, W & USO). After winning AO 2005, he was not too much of a threat for rest of the decade.

Seems that Safin was at his at his peak in his early 20s (until 24/25) but was horrendously out of his prime by 26/27.

Roddick on the other hand was a threat and top 10 for most of the decade (actually from 2002 to 2010/11).

 

[Donk]

Skating. I love skating. But not been able to do it for quite some time. Seriously bad hip. Need a new one (titanium).

Roddick also suffered from a number of injuries in 2007. Hamstring, hamstring, hamstring, knee and shoulder, I believe. Overall, Safin may have been on the DL with injuries a bit more than Roddick. But Marat also suffered from (mental) focus issues. He had quite a reputation for partying with his buds and with womanizing. ARod may have indulged a bit -- but not close to the extent that Marat did.

Safin was a major factor on the pro tour from late 2000 to early 2005 (January). With an extended break in 2003 (missed RG, W & USO). After winning AO 2005, he was not too much of a threat for rest of the decade.

Roddick on the other hand was a threat and top 10 for most of the decade (actually from 2002 to 2010/11).

Safin when fit was a much bigger threat than Roddick.

No, Roddick did not suffer from injuries in 2007 aside from Miami. He was consistently making semifinals/Quaterfinals in the majority of events he played, but his dodo net suicide bombing game was figured out by anyone playing well. Ironically, the only match Roddick played well at the net was against Safin at AO 07.

Roddick had pretty much an injury free career from 01-2010. It was only mid 2010 when the injuries started hitting - but this was due to the grinding nature of his game.

Safin was gone mid 2005 due to injuries. He lost pretty much half of his career due to injuries. What don't people understand this?



Marat did suffer from mental instability, but also had moments to absolute mental strength. AO 2005 is pretty much complete proof of this.



I don't know why people are talking about partying etc. Safin is clearly a better tennis player than Roddick. He has more slams, more big wins, SF in all slams, more DC, way more injuries, and has beaten Roddick when Roddick was #1. Safin is also a lot better from the baseline, at the net, has a much better return, lob, pass, drop and improve, lightyears better BH, and a more rounded game. Roddick had the better serve and forehand (although his FH after 04 was horrible). Safin was the much better movement, and even then Safin's serve and FH at his best were nothing to sniff at.


Roddick had way more technical holes in his game.



These are the facts, which I post to you.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Safin when fit was a much bigger threat than Roddick.

No, Roddick did not suffer from injuries in 2007 aside from Miami. He was consistently making semifinals/Quaterfinals in the majority of events he played, but his dodo net suicide bombing game was figured out by anyone playing well. Ironically, the only match Roddick played well at the net was against Safin at AO 07.

Roddick had pretty much an injury free career from 01-2010. It was only mid 2010 when the injuries started hitting - but this was due to the grinding nature of his game.

Safin was gone mid 2005 due to injuries. He lost pretty much half of his career due to injuries. What don't people understand this?



Marat did suffer from mental instability, but also had moments to absolute mental strength. AO 2005 is pretty much complete proof of this.



I don't know why people are talking about partying etc. Safin is clearly a better tennis player than Roddick. He has more slams, more big wins, SF in all slams, more DC, way more injuries, and has beaten Roddick when Roddick was #1. Safin is also a lot better from the baseline, at the net, has a much better return, lob, pass, drop and improve, lightyears better BH, and a more rounded game. Roddick had the better serve and forehand (although his FH after 04 was horrible). Safin was the much better movement, and even then Safin's serve and FH at his best were nothing to sniff at.


Roddick had way more technical holes in his game.



These are the facts, which I post to you.

No argument that Safin was extremely talented. I already pointed that out in a previous post in this thread. But he had only 4+ years at the top in the 00 decade (his early/mid 20s). Roddick rose a little bit later -- 2001/2002. He remained a top 10 player for most of the decade (until 2011).

Doesn't matter whether Safin was somewhat more talented than Roddick or not. ARod had a greater total impact on the 00 decade than Safin did. That is the major criteria for many of us.

I already pointed out that they both had 5 Masters 1000 titles -- but 3 of Safin's were the smaller (& weaker) Paris Masters. Roddick reached more finals at both M1000 and slam events than Safin. ARod also reached more slam SFs than Safin. I provided more details on all this earlier.

And your "facts" about Roddicks injuries are not correct. I was mistaken about his shoulder injury in 2007. That did not happen until RG 2008. Also had a neck injury later in '08 (Cincy). His shoulder bothered him in 2010 and again in 2011. Possibly a major factor in his retirement.

Foot injury in 2006 at RG. Other?

He was plagued with hamstring issues in 2007. First st Miami. He aggravated it further during Davis Cup. Because of the hamstring, Andy also pulled out of the US Clay Court Championships (Houston) and the Monte Carlo Masters. He withdrew from the Hamburg Masters to recover for RG. He pulled out Madrid that year with a knee injury. I believe he also pulled out of the Paris Masters in 2007 to recover.

 

[Donk]

No argument that Safin was extremely talented. I already pointed that out in a previous post in this thread. But he had only 4+ years at the top in the 00 decade (his early/mid 20s). Roddick rose a little bit later -- 2001/2002. He remained a top 10 player for most of the decade (until 2011).

Doesn't matter whether Safin was somewhat more talented than Roddick or not. ARod had a greater total impact on the 00 decade than Safin did. That is the major criteria for many of us.

I already pointed out that they both had 5 Masters 1000 titles -- but 3 of Safin's were the smaller (& weaker) Paris Masters. Roddick reached more finals at both M1000 and slam events than Safin. ARod also reached more slam SFs than Safin. I provided more details on all this earlier.

And your "facts" about Roddicks injuries are not correct. I was mistaken about his shoulder injury in 2007. That did not happen until RG 2008. Also had a neck injury later in '08 (Cincy). His shoulder bothered him in 2010 and again in 2011. Possibly a major factor in his retirement.

Foot injury in 2006 at RG. Other?

He was plagued with hamstring issues in 2007. First st Miami. He aggravated it further during Davis Cup. Because of the hamstring, Andy also pulled out of the US Clay Court Championships (Houston) and the Monte Carlo Masters. He withdrew from the Hamburg Masters to recover for RG. He pulled out Madrid that year with a knee injury. I believe he also pulled out of the Paris Masters in 2007 to recover.

But the question was 'who is the better tennis player'. Safin is technically the better tennis player....I am confused by the confusion of this question!!!!


Actually, Safin's masters count for more. Roddick had an injured clay courter in Miami 04, and never played Bo5 matches in masters, whilst Safin did.


Roddick's consistency is due to being able to play for 10+ years. Safin would never reach that level of consistency due to being injured in so many events. think about it for one second. In 2003 he missed pretty much the whole year, 2004 is his comeback year and is still playing through pain, then in 2005 gets brutally injured again. That's a bummer considering he was just starting to peak - won Madrid-Paris-AO


Roddick's shoulder injury hampered him, but he was never going to win it playing passively anyway.

RG? Seriously?



Safin's career was cut short due to injuries and lost half of his career. Roddick was always showing up for events. No comparison as to who struggled with injuries.




Roddick didn't have a greater impact on the sport. In a list of matches from the 00's, a lot more matches will show as Safin being a part of them. Roddick has had some classics, but Safin has battled Agassi, Federer, Sampras etc in the slams, some of them being affairs, some of them Safin winning in epics, some of them Safin losing but giving his all etc. Roddick just lost to better players. Beat who he was supposed to beat (in his prime), lost to someone he could/should lose to. Safin beat players who are regularly talked about in GOAT lists. Sometimes beating them easily. Can Roddick say this? No.


I feel Roddick is more popular with people who don't really follow tennis that well.





Safin's record on clay is better than Roddick. Fact.
Safin's record on HC is better/ Fact.
Safin's record indoors is better. Fact.
Safin's record on carpet is better. Fact




So, Roddick is inferior to Safin on 4/5 conditions yet I am supposed to believe that Roddick is better.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

But the question was 'who is the better tennis player'. Safin is technically the better tennis player....I am confused by the confusion of this question!!!!

I feel Roddick is more popular with people who don't really follow tennis that well...

Way to throw in a sly insult there. Boooo. FYI, I'm a huge Safin fan. Even met him once. But I still believe Roddick had a better 00 decade career.

Obvious that you have your criteria or interpretation of what constitutes 'best' or 3rd best. Most of use have other criteria -- as seen by the poll and other posts.

Safin had some outstanding physical chops. Not denying that. Roddick was a better player mentally. Wimbledon 2009 was a great example of that even tho he lost. I dare say that his performance was even better than Safin's win over Sampras for USO 00.

Safin's top years cover less than half of the 00 decade. His career was a blip compared to other guys in the poll.

Roddick (with 32) won more than double the 15 singles titles than Safin. And 4 doubles titles to Safin's 2. And even tho Roddick's career spanned some 12 years, he was able to keep his wins to 74%. Who besides the Big 3 can claim that good or better. Certainly not Safin with 61%. Yes, I know... injuries.

The bottom line is that, overall, Roddick had an greater impact during the 00 decade. That's my primary criteria for considering him as a contender for 3rd best.

You are certainly welcome to your own criteria. But no need to insult others who don't see things your way.

 

[jasonbrown]

To me the Safin vs Roddick comparision is pointless as neither is worthy of the vote in this poll. Atleast Safin has a rightful low number of votes while Roddick with only 1 slam, no success at the WTF, and barely anytime at #1 has a ridiculously large amount of votes with no merit.

Agassi and Hewitt should both be dwarfing them in this poll. Roddick having many more votes than Hewitt is just embarassingly wrong.

 

[FD3S]

Hewitt lost a final 6-0 7-6 6-0

Lol. The third best player of the 00's got taken to the bakery twice in a slam final?


If you believe Hewitt is technically better than Safin, you are likely a low level thinker.

Against the first best player of the 2000s and arguably the leading candidate for best player of all time during the start of his peak as an athlete.

You know, I'm starting to see why your main criteria for this discussion is peak level of play and nothing else; it makes it easy to lionize Safin's immense talent while allowing you to ignore all the myriad flaws that kept him from winning more. He can't be blamed for getting injured, but he can certainly be blamed for consistently losing to players he should have rolled even though he had the skill to take the big names to the woodshed.

EDIT: Realized I didn't vote. Hard not to go with Agassi even though Hewitt held #1 for a longer uninterrupted span. That said, I agree that Hewitt's being vastly underrated on this poll; while Roddick's longevity at the top is astonishing, Hewitt ran roughshod over the tour for quite a while.

 

[jasonbrown]

Against the first best player of the 2000s and arguably the leading candidate for best player of all time during the start of his peak as an athlete.

You know, I'm starting to see why your main criteria for this discussion is peak level of play and nothing else; it makes it easy to lionize Safin's immense talent while allowing you to ignore all the myriad flaws that kept him from winning more. He can't be blamed for getting injured, but he can certainly be blamed for consistently losing to players he should have rolled even though he had the skill to take the big names to the woodshed.

EDIT: Realized I didn't vote. Hard not to go with Agassi even though Hewitt held #1 for a longer uninterrupted span. That said, I agree that Hewitt's being vastly underrated on this poll; while Roddick's longevity at the top is astonishing, Hewitt ran roughshod over the tour for quite a while.

Well I agree with some of your points on Safin vs Roddick, your last paragraph really points out the real truth. This should only be between Agassi and Hewitt. None of Djokovic, Safin, Roddick should have any real claim at all.

As for Safin vs Roddick I would go with Safin slightly not due to Safin's talent or so called potential which I dont care about, but since 2 slams vs 1 is a huge difference, and I personally dont find any of the edges in Roddick's career enough to make up for that. Similar very little time at #1, same # of Masters, neither won YEC. Roddick has the edge in consistency and total titles but not enough to make up for the extra slam IMO. I dont see 2 slams vs 1 slam as anything like say 8 slams vs 7 slams either. Moot though as neither deserves the vote.

 

[FD3S]

Well I agree with some of your points on Safin vs Roddick, your last paragraph really points out the real truth. This should only be between Agassi and Hewitt. None of Djokovic, Safin, Roddick should have any real claim at all.

As for Safin vs Roddick I would go with Safin slightly not due to Safin's talent or so called potential which I dont care about, but since 2 slams vs 1 is a huge difference, and I personally dont find any of the edges in Roddick's career enough to make up for that. Similar very little time at #1, same # of Masters, neither won YEC. Roddick has the edge in consistency and total titles but not enough to make up for the extra slam IMO. I dont see 2 slams vs 1 slam as anything like say 8 slams vs 7 slams either. Moot though as neither deserves the vote.

Fair! To me I'd edge it slightly toward Roddick because while his advantages over Safin in a lot of categories are fairly small, to me there's enough deficits for the Russian that when you combine them with Roddick's insane consistency and maximization of his relatively limited talent (which I care about even though others might not) it's very hard for me to dismiss all that and go 'nope, one extra major.' It's a tight call either way.

 

[jasonbrown]

Fair! To me I'd edge it slightly toward Roddick because while his advantages over Safin in a lot of categories are fairly small, to me there's enough deficits for the Russian that when you combine them with Roddick's insane consistency and maximization of his relatively limited talent (which I care about even though others might not) it's very hard for me to dismiss all that and go 'nope, one extra major.' It's a tight call either way.

For me there is a big seperation between a 2 slam winner and 1 slam winner, it would take a lot to tip the balance for me. For instance who would you rate higher between Pierce and Sabatini. I would pick Pierce despite that nearly every other aspect of her career besides slam wins and slam finals is behind Sabatini. I would likewise rank higher over Novotna and Martinez, where the same holds true, especialy for Novotna. I see this as a similar comparision to Sabatini and Pierce.

If we be real people wont care much about consistency or number of titles for little known players years from now. The things besides their slam wins they would look at are if they were ever #1 (both Safin and Roddick were but very briefly), if they won the YEC or maybe Olympics (neither did), slam finals (Roddick has 1 more), Masters wins (even), and things like how big of wins players had for their few slam wins (huge win to Safin here). The only big edge Roddick might have from the more long term relevant things is ending a Year at #1, even though to both have a similar low number of weeks. I am not really for giving Roddick extra credit for what he accomplished in spite of perceived lesser talent either, that is on par with giving Safin undue credit for perceived greater talent, which as you already noted in this thread is flawed.

 

[Donk]

I remember the times where winning slams meant something, and beating the top players during those events meant something.

Obviously, beating Nalbandian and Ferrero is more noteworthy than beating Federer.

 

[FD3S]

For me there is a big seperation between a 2 slam winner and 1 slam winner, it would take a lot to tip the balance for me. For instance who would you rate higher between Pierce and Sabatini. I would pick Pierce despite that nearly every other aspect of her career besides slam wins and slam finals is behind Sabatini. I would likewise rank higher over Novotna and Martinez, where the same holds true, especialy for Novotna. I see this as a similar comparision to Sabatini and Pierce.

If we be real people wont care much about consistency or number of titles for little known players years from now. The things besides their slam wins they would look at are if they were ever #1 (both Safin and Roddick were but very briefly), if they won the YEC or maybe Olympics (neither did), slam finals (Roddick has 1 more), Masters wins (even), and things like how big of wins players had for their few slam wins (huge win to Safin here). The only big edge Roddick might have from the more long term relevant things is ending a Year at #1, even though to both have a similar low number of weeks. I am not really for giving Roddick extra credit for what he accomplished in spite of perceived lesser talent either, that is on par with giving Safin undue credit for perceived greater talent, which as you already noted in this thread is flawed.

The thing with this is that might very well apply to the casual fan who tunes in when the majors are on and know the Big Four and the Williams Sisters. On tennis forums (here, MTF, Reddit, etc) with fans that are a lot more rabid, things get a lot more murky with context for numbers being put under the microscope routinely. Case in point; while you're correct that Safin and Roddick are tied with Masters wins, SystemicAnomaly pointed out earlier that three of Safin's five Masters wins came at a Paris tournament that was relatively unimpressive compared to others due to the smaller draw. Something an average fan might not take into account? Sure. Something that undoubtedly matters when it comes to analysis? Also sure.

Furthermore, while your point was made for 'little known 'players' A-Rod wasn't exactly that (an American major winner and a world #1 doesn't exactly make for a little known player, even for a novice fan), nor was Roddick's consistency just him being a 'name' for the better part of the decade; he was so good day in and day out that when he entered the top ten in 2002, barring a hiccup that lasted a handful of weeks in 2006 he didn't leave that elite group for nine years. A big chunk of that came from him continuing to be a factor deep, deep into the decade, long after his other contemporaries had faded - his last truly good result in 2010 had him almost pull off the Sunshine Double, stopped in the finals of IW only by the same inspired Ljubicic that stopped Rafael Nadal. He was more than just a guy that showed up and did okay, he was a legitimate threat for almost an entire decade, and I'd make the argument that's a big part of what got him into the HoF.

I remember the times where winning slams meant something, and beating the top players during those events meant something.

Obviously, beating Nalbandian and Ferrero is more noteworthy than beating Federer.

Don't be obtuse. Of course it means something; part of the reason that it's hard to decisively put Roddick over Safin is because of that second major. That said, your insistence on focusing on peak level of play and impressiveness of wins above all else is mindboggling. Sure, it's insanely impressive what Safin did during his highs. It's significantly less impressive that he also dropped a lot more matches to relative nobodies than most of his contemporaries, as evidenced by his fluctuating ranking throughout his time on tour. Injuries? Some of it was that. What about the rest of it?

 

[jasonbrown]

That said, your insistence on focusing on peak level of play

LOL I didnt say anything about peak level of play. I specifically said I dont even care about Safin's so called superior potential or talent. I also would never be putting Hewitt or an old Agassi above Safin or even young Djokovic as I do, if I were mainly evaluating peak level play. Msot of my posts int his thread are complaining how little support Hewitt has in this poll, which someone who cared most about peak level play and sheer talent level would not be doing. I care about peak level results (Hwwitt's long run at #1, back to back YEC titles, and semi dominance for about 2 years) than peak level play.

I did note Safin's bigger wins in slam finals since those will be in the record books forever, and will always be a big factor in how people evaluate said player years from now, likely more than how many years they had in the top 10 or how many 500 or 250 tournaments they won. That is just reality, fair or not. Just of note even guys like Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer have impressive runs in the top 10 too, so there is only so much stock I give to that vs major wins, time at #1, Masters, WTF wins, etc...

 

[FD3S]

LOL I didnt say anything about peak level of play. I specifically said I dont even care about Safin's so called superior potential or talent. I also would never be putting Hewitt or an old Agassi above Safin or even young Djokovic as I do, if I were mainly evaluating peak level play. Msot of my posts int his thread are complaining how little support Hewitt has in this poll, which someone who cared most about peak level play and sheer talent level would not be doing. I care about peak level results (Hwwitt's long run at #1, back to back YEC titles, and semi dominance for about 2 years) than peak level play.

I did note Safin's bigger wins in slam finals since those will be in the record books forever, and will always be a big factor in how people evaluate said player years from now, likely more than how many years they had in the top 10 or how many 500 or 250 tournaments they won. That is just reality, fair or not. Just of note even guys like Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer have impressive runs in the top 10 too, so there is only so much stock I give to that vs major wins, time at #1, Masters, WTF wins, etc...

Uh... I'm well aware you didn't say anything about that. It'd be hard for me to argue that you did considering the name at the top of that quote I was replying to reads 'Donk' and not 'jasonbrown' - I figured it was better to use one post for two replies.

And again, while the majors are generally the benchmark - as they should be - in this particular case I feel Safin's got enough deficits in his resume that there's at least an argument (no more, no less) that even the added major doesn't put him over the top in a direct comparison between the two without some serious hand-wringing. And not for nothing, but while Berdych and Ferrer do have impressive spans in the top ten, neither of them touches Roddick's at 440 weeks; when you're at the top of the game for that long a time, I'd wager sheer longevity does start to come into play for career evaluation, especially when you're still winning Masters finals and making Slam QF/SF/F runs deep into your run. I remember when tennis.com did their top 50 players of the Open Era for their 50th anniversary a few years back (25 men, 25 women), Tignor had Roddick at #25 for the men - for the record he had Hewitt at #22 - eclipsing two major players like Rafter, Safin, and Kafelnikov based on the strength of his overall resume/consistency/body of work.

 

[BlueClay]

Nobody. They were big 2 for a reason. It is very difficult to say who was the better player out of the big 2.

 

[jasonbrown]

Uh... I'm well aware you didn't say anything about that. It'd be hard for me to argue that you did considering the name at the top of that quote I was replying to reads 'Donk' and not 'jasonbrown' - I figured it was better to use one post for two replies.

And again, while the majors are generally the benchmark - as they should be - in this particular case I feel Safin's got enough deficits in his resume that there's at least an argument (no more, no less) that even the added major doesn't put him over the top in a direct comparison between the two without some serious hand-wringing. And not for nothing, but while Berdych and Ferrer do have impressive spans in the top ten, neither of them touches Roddick's at 440 weeks; when you're at the top of the game for that long a time, I'd wager sheer longevity does start to come into play for career evaluation, especially when you're still winning Masters finals and making Slam QF/SF/F runs deep into your run. I remember when tennis.com did their top 50 players of the Open Era for their 50th anniversary a few years back (25 men, 25 women), Tignor had Roddick at #25 for the men - for the record he had Hewitt at #22 - eclipsing two major players like Rafter, Safin, and Kafelnikov based on the strength of his overall resume/consistency/body of work.

My bad, Donk is on my ignore list. Thus the confusion and why I thought that was directed at me.

I dont think we disagree on anything, other than a gap between what we see as the difference beween being a 1 slam winner and 2 slam winner, and how big other differences have to be to compensate. Like I said for me it is much bigger than the gap between say a 7 slam winner and 8 slam winner, which may not be the case for you. Like I asked you directly, who would your ate higher between Sabatini and Pierce? Since I see this as a similar comparision just looking at results (with Sabatini being Roddick and Pierce being Safin). I rate Pierce higher, despite that Sabatini had the more consistent career with a lot more pluses besides the major wins and majors finals of Pierce, probably even more than in comparing Safin to Roddick (both have a career high of #3 just as Safin and Roddick both have brief stints at #1, but Sabatini was a mere 1 match from #1 3 times in 91 but lost the crucial match all 3). It is not that I completely disregard consistency or longevity, I just see the gap between winning 1 slams and 2 slams pretty big and probably also needing a difference in Masters/time at #1/maybe a WTF in addition to superior consistency/longevity to compensate.

And another way to look at is you could argue Safin being over Wawrinka by the same logic through body of work. Yet then you would be also arguing 1 slam winner Roddick over 3 slam winner Wawrinka. Which maybe you could see, I dont know, but you get an idea of the dilemna.

 

[FD3S]

My bad, Donk is on my ignore list. Thus the confusion and why I thought that was directed at me.

I dont think we disagree on anything, other than a gap between what we see as the difference beween being a 1 slam winner and 2 slam winner, and how big other differences have to be to compensate. Like I said for me it is much bigger than the gap between say a 7 slam winner and 8 slam winner, which may not be the case for you. Like I asked you directly, who would your ate higher between Sabatini and Pierce? Since I see this as a similar comparision just looking at results (with Sabatini being Roddick and Pierce being Safin). I rate Pierce higher, despite that Sabatini had the more consistent career with a lot more pluses besides the major wins and majors finals of Pierce, probably even more than in comparing Safin to Roddick (both have a career high of #3 just as Safin and Roddick both have brief stints at #1, but Sabatini was a mere 1 match from #1 3 times in 91 but lost the crucial match all 3). It is not that I completely disregard consistency or longevity, I just see the gap between winning 1 slams and 2 slams pretty big and probably also needing a difference in Masters/time at #1/maybe a WTF in addition to superior consistency/longevity to compensate.

And another way to look at is you could argue Safin being over Wawrinka by the same logic through body of work. Yet then you would be also arguing 1 slam winner Roddick over 3 slam winner Wawrinka. Which maybe you could see, I dont know, but you get an idea of the dilemna.

Haha, I gotcha. Can't say I blame you for the ignore, to be honest.

Ah, Stan. Honestly, Wawrinka's one of those enigmas that's really difficult to rate even when you're not muddying the waters with other players; his three majors were won in spectacular fashion against tough competition, but it's tough to balance that out against his being little more than an afterthought for the first 75% of his career... and to be honest, outside the majors (and even in some of the majors still) he's got a horrible tendency to lose to comparatively lesser lights that the Big Four or other elite players would have rolled even on mediocre days. I also think that when put on a legitimately fast surface - sadly now few and far between - his much vaunted groundstrokes can turn into liabilities due to the prep time needed. That said, while I'll be forever torn on Safin/Roddick, I'd say Stan's third major does put him above both.

 

[jasonbrown]

Haha, I gotcha. Can't say I blame you for the ignore, to be honest.

Ah, Stan. Honestly, Wawrinka's one of those enigmas that's really difficult to rate even when you're not muddying the waters with other players; his three majors were won in spectacular fashion against tough competition, but it's tough to balance that out against his being little more than an afterthought for the first 75% of his career... and to be honest, outside the majors (and even in some of the majors still) he's got a horrible tendency to lose to comparatively lesser lights that the Big Four or other elite players would have rolled even on mediocre days. I also think that when put on a legitimately fast surface - sadly now few and far between - his much vaunted groundstrokes can turn into liabilities due to the prep time needed. That said, while I'll be forever torn on Safin/Roddick, I'd say Stan's third major does put him above both.

Another thing I am curious about is how you rank Kafelnikov against Roddick/Safin. I personally put him behind both. Unlike Safin who has 5 Masters he does not even have any, which is pathetic for a 2 slam winner. He did reach #1 briefly like the other two, but his rise to #1 was the most abysmal in history (I wont say he is the weakest to get to #1, but his ascent to #1 is the weakest) with 6 1st round losses to get there, and he played pathetically for awhile upon becoming #1, until he lost it then started playing well again. He has won neither of the 2 slightly more prestigious slams. He does have an Olympic Gold but before it was recently becoming more meaningful. His consistency would be behind Roddick but above Safin. The only way I see him above is if you give him credit for his doubles which I am fine with, that is always a slightly confusing subject.

 

[Donk]

Nice to know only complete idiots who view Hewitt and Roddick better tennis players than Safin have put me on their ignore list.

 

[Heuristic]

Hewitt lost to the eventual winner in every slam in 2004-2005 including 5x to GOAT'ing Fed.

This is often neglected. Roddick just faced Federer later in the draws, so people kinda forgot about Hewitt. Funny how similiar their results were two. They both lost in 4 sets at 2004 Wimbledon, and in straight sets at the 05 Wimbledon (similar scores too with one tiebreak each).

US Open 2005- Hewitt took Federer to 4 sets in one of my favourite matches ever:

 

[jasonbrown]

This is often neglected. Roddick just faced Federer later in the draws, so people kinda forgot about Hewitt. Funny how similiar their results were two. They both lost in 4 sets at 2004 Wimbledon, and in straight sets at the 05 Wimbledon (similar scores too with one tiebreak each).

US Open 2005- Hewitt took Federer to 4 sets in one of my favourite matches ever:

Hewitt had a good shot of winning both U.S Opens, Wimbledon 05, and Australia 04 if he did not face Federer. He had a shot of Wimbledon 04 too although I think Roddick beats him there. Agassi in U.S Open 04 and Nalbandian in Australia 04 had a shot to beat him, but I think Nalbandian is more likely to fold mentally and Agassi run out of gas. Wimbledon 05 and U.S Open 05 are nearly certain IMO.

 

[Donk]

Hewitt tried to win the grand slam.

 

[Heuristic]

Hewitt had a good shot of winning both U.S Opens, Wimbledon 05, and Australia 04 if he did not face Federer. .

His chances of winning the 04 US Open should be pretty decent, although Agassi with that home crowd you never know. Maybe 40-45% chance. Hewitt would have a 50% chance of beating Roddick in 05 Wimbledon final, no doubt. Maybe a little bit higher.

 

[jasonbrown]

His chances of winning the 04 US Open should be pretty decent, although Agassi with that home crowd you never know. Maybe 40-45% chance. Hewitt would have a 50% chance of beating Roddick in 05 Wimbledon final, no doubt. Maybe a little bit higher.

I think Hewitt was just a lot sharper than Roddick at Wimbledon 05. Watching their various matches at that event I dont have much doubt he wins, although it is probably still a tough battle. I think Hewitt actually has a higher shot to beat Roddick at Wimbledon 04 than Roddick to beat Hewitt at Wimbledon 05, although I still would guess Roddick winning in 04 and Hewitt in 05.

 

[Donk]

Hewitt is a better player than Safin. The biggest difference is the serve, and the power. Hewitt also was much physically stronger and the only reason he never beat a prime Federer is simply variance.

Furthermore, Hewitt's slam draws were much harder. Everyone knows Nalbandian's peak is higher than Safin's, and Hewitt took out a very established grass counter in the final of Wimbledon. Hewitt having achieved nothing of note past 2002 was still such a force in tennis, he is even regarded as better tennis 0layers who won slams past this year. Tennis is the only sport which gets progressively worse as time years roll on.


The only reason Hewitt lost the AO final was fatigue. Safin having to play a chumping Federer and Hewitt struggling past a dumb Roddick ment Hewitt was at a natural disadvantage.


Hewitt had an easy cakewalk to a Wimbledon final. Did Anyone see the crap Safin had to do to even make a AO final in 04?



Everyone here is completely underrating an absolute legend in Safin. Safin never lost in the first round at his favourite slam to such a low level player like Karlovic like Hewitt did at Wimbledon 2003. It's a complete joke that Safin's losses apparently eclipse his epic wins. Hewitt has no epic wins. All of the opponents he has beaten were either out of prime or playing crap. Haven't you noticed that in any top 20 matches of all time thread, Safins name frequently pops up, whilst Hewitts name never even gets a footnote unless it is a 'what is the best display of tennis' thread, in which that 04 US open match is pretty much unanimously seen as a man playing with his dog.


safin never lost a final 0, 6 and 0 to anyone. He beat Hewitt in the mat hes that mattered the most. If you take a look at the H2H, even take out the AO, you can clearly see that in the bigger finals Safin didnt just come out ahead, he completely blitzed the guy.


but hey, I am clearly a low level thinker that believes level of play and competition means something. Silly me.

 

[FD3S]

Another thing I am curious about is how you rank Kafelnikov against Roddick/Safin. I personally put him behind both. Unlike Safin who has 5 Masters he does not even have any, which is pathetic for a 2 slam winner. He did reach #1 briefly like the other two, but his rise to #1 was the most abysmal in history (I wont say he is the weakest to get to #1, but his ascent to #1 is the weakest) with 6 1st round losses to get there, and he played pathetically for awhile upon becoming #1, until he lost it then started playing well again. He has won neither of the 2 slightly more prestigious slams. He does have an Olympic Gold but before it was recently becoming more meaningful. His consistency would be behind Roddick but above Safin. The only way I see him above is if you give him credit for his doubles which I am fine with, that is always a slightly confusing subject.

Kafelnikov's another interesting case - two majors, world #1, Olympic Gold, an extremely well rounded player in all respects, and yet when watching him you really saw that he really came off as a 'master of none' far more than he did of a 'jack of all trades'. No Masters, and his major draws were fairly weak; that said (and this is strictly anecdotal) he very well may have not minded, as I recall hearing that Kafelnikov's main priority on tour was making money. As a result, during his peak as a player he would clean up at the 250/500 levels for both singles and doubles, overplaying to the point where he would inevitably have a less than full gas tank for the majors... which of course he played both singles and doubles in as well. It's impressive his body managed to hold up under the load he put it under. While his peak level was a notch below the top guys, there was almost nothing he lacked skill-wise besides his serve not being great for someone his height; his AO final against Agassi has some of the cleanest ballstriking you'll ever see, along with some solid net play. Much like Safin, with a better head on his shoulders... who knows? I'd rate him below Roddick and Safin (and definitely well below Hewitt) in spite of his two majors and Olympic Gold, but I personally think he's another one that deserves more respect than he gets. He could ball.

I think Hewitt was just a lot sharper than Roddick at Wimbledon 05. Watching their various matches at that event I dont have much doubt he wins, although it is probably still a tough battle. I think Hewitt actually has a higher shot to beat Roddick at Wimbledon 04 than Roddick to beat Hewitt at Wimbledon 05, although I still would guess Roddick winning in 04 and Hewitt in 05.

IMO 2005 Roddick wants no part of 2005 Hewitt at that Wimbledon. He played okay by his standards to reach the final - certainly not as well as 2003 or 2004 - but at that point his slide from the Gilbert influenced offense game had begun and wouldn't be stopped. While his power off the ground wasn't yet as neutered as it would eventually become, he wasn't the same blaster of the previous two years. In contrast, Hewitt was still healthy and had his beefed up physique and serve courtesy of his AO prep - he'd have been ready for A-Rod, no doubt. I do agree that Roddick probably takes a hypothetical 2004 matchup and Hewitt takes 2005, though.

 

[jasonbrown]

I am glad Kafelnikov finally got into the Tennis Hall of Fame. Long overdue. I agree for what he achieved and his ability level, he is underrated, but I think there are numerous reasons he is underrated:

1. Especialy poor record against the big guns of his era eg Sampras, Becker, Kuerten, Muster on clay, respectable against Agassi
2. Not an exciting playing style
3. Not a likeable personalilty, made a lot of strange comments, and still does, dissing regular top 20 players like Lopez out of random. Alot of thrash talk comments failed to back up like giving Hewitt a tennis lesson during Davis Cup. He and Rios traded the lemon award on tour for a few years, which shows he was nearly as disliked amongst his peers as Rios was.

 

[FD3S]

I am glad Kafelnikov finally got into the Tennis Hall of Fame. Long overdue. I agree for what he achieved and his ability level, he is underrated, but I think there are numerous reasons he is underrated:

1. Especialy poor record against the big guns of his era eg Sampras, Becker, Kuerten, Muster on clay, respectable against Agassi
2. Not an exciting playing style
3. Not a likeable personalilty, made a lot of strange comments, and still does, dissing regular top 20 players like Lopez out of random. Alot of thrash talk comments failed to back up like giving Hewitt a tennis lesson during Davis Cup. He and Rios traded the lemon award on tour for a few years, which shows he was nearly as disliked amongst his peers as Rios was.

I also recall the gambling accusations possibly hurting him for HoF inclusion, though I can't say for sure if those ever surfaced with any degree of seriousness during his peak as an active player.

 

[Druss]

You didn’t write the OP. If you read it, you’ll clearly see it’s referring to the 3rd best achievements in the decade.

And yes, Nalbandian’s peak in the 2000s was comparable to Safin’s and Novak Djokovic’s (in that decade).

Common man, Nalbandian was da*n good I get that, I too liked his game....but to say his peak is comparable to Safin’s (and Djoko’s)? That’s blasphemy!

 

[Donk]

Kafelnikov's another interesting case - two majors, world #1, Olympic Gold, an extremely well rounded player in all respects, and yet when watching him you really saw that he really came off as a 'master of none' far more than he did of a 'jack of all trades'. No Masters, and his major draws were fairly weak; that said (and this is strictly anecdotal) he very well may have not minded, as I recall hearing that Kafelnikov's main priority on tour was making money. As a result, during his peak as a player he would clean up at the 250/500 levels for both singles and doubles, overplaying to the point where he would inevitably have a less than full gas tank for the majors... which of course he played both singles and doubles in as well. It's impressive his body managed to hold up under the load he put it under. While his peak level was a notch below the top guys, there was almost nothing he lacked skill-wise besides his serve not being great for someone his height; his AO final against Agassi has some of the cleanest ballstriking you'll ever see, along with some solid net play. Much like Safin, with a better head on his shoulders... who knows? I'd rate him below Roddick and Safin (and definitely well below Hewitt) in spite of his two majors and Olympic Gold, but I personally think he's another one that deserves more respect than he gets. He could ball.


IMO 2005 Roddick wants no part of 2005 Hewitt at that Wimbledon. He played okay by his standards to reach the final - certainly not as well as 2003 or 2004 - but at that point his slide from the Gilbert influenced offense game had begun and wouldn't be stopped. While his power off the ground wasn't yet as neutered as it would eventually become, he wasn't the same blaster of the previous two years. In contrast, Hewitt was still healthy and had his beefed up physique and serve courtesy of his AO prep - he'd have been ready for A-Rod, no doubt. I do agree that Roddick probably takes a hypothetical 2004 matchup and Hewitt takes 2005, though.

Hewitt isn't good enough to be given hypothetical slams. If he was on the other side of the draw he could have lost to a Karlovic level player. Lol.

 

[clout]

Was looking through some old threads I started and found this one. Since I got time nowadays, here's the stats during 2000s for the strongest candidates including Agassi, Hewitt, Djokovic, Safin, and Roddick.

Agassi:
- 3 majors
- 5 slam finals
- 9 slam semis
- 7 Masters titles (1 RU)
- 16 overall titles (9 RUs)
- 270-85 overall record (76%)
- 87-20 record at slams (81%)
- 50 weeks at number one
- YE ranking; 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
- 2 WTF RUs
- 33 wins vs top 10 players
- 2-10 record vs Fedal
- Playing span; 2000-2006

Hewitt:
- 2 majors
- 4 slam finals
- 8 slam semis
- 2 Masters titles (5 RUs)
- 25 overall titles (11 RUs)
- 466-151 overall record (75%)
- 121-36 slam record (77%)
- 2 Year-End Number Ones
- 75 weeks at number one
- YE ranking: 1, 1, 3, 4, 7
- 2 WTF titles (1 RU)
- 52 wins vs top 10 players
- 9-21 record vs Fedal
- Playing span: 2000-2009

Djokovic:
- 1 major
- 2 slam finals
- 8 slam semis
- 5 Masters titles (6 RUs)
- 16 overall titles (11 RUs)
- 263-87 overall record (75%)
- 66-19 slam record (78%)
- 2008 WTF title
- YE Ranking: 3, 3, 3
- 35 wins v top 10 players
- Olympic Bronze Medal
- 12-23 record vs Fedal
- Playing span: 2004-2009

Roddick:
- 1 slam
- 5 slam finals
- 10 slam semis
- 4 Masters titles (3 RUs)
- 507-163 overall record (76%)
- 106-34 slam record (76%)
- 27 overall titles (17 RUs)
- 3 WTF semis
- 2003 Year-End Number One
- 13 weeks at number one
- YE Ranking: 1, 2, 3, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10
- 31 wins vs top 10 players
- 4-25 record vs Fedal
- Playing span: 2000-2009

Safin:
- 2 slams
- 4 slam finals
- 7 slam semis
- 5 Masters titles (2 RUs)
- 14 overall titles (11 RUs)
- 366-216 overall record (63%)
- 83-32 slam record (72%)
- 2 WTF semis
- 9 weeks at number one
- YE ranking: 2, 3, 4
- 43 wins vs top 10 players
- 2-12 record vs Fedal
- Playing span: 2000-2009

 

[clout]

Given the numbers I'd have to say:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Hewitt
5. Djokovic
6. Roddick
7. Safin

Remember this is only taking their 2000s stats into consideration so what they did in 1999 or 2012 doesn't count in this thread, hence why Djokovic ranks below players like Hewitt.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Clearly Agassi, even though he was irrelevant after 2005. Djokovic shouldn't even be in the discussion, he won one slam. Roddick won a slam and a ton of other tournaments as well. Safin/Hewitt won two majors as well.

 

[clout]

Clearly Agassi, even though he was irrelevant after 2005. Djokovic shouldn't even be in the discussion, he won one slam. Roddick won a slam and a ton of other tournaments as well. Safin/Hewitt won two majors as well.

Djokovic also won 5 Masters, a WTF, and beat Fedal more than any other player in the 2000s despite only playing 3-4 seasons. Not to mention he played in countless tight matches with Fedal on big stages. The biggest knock is that Novak never cracked the top 2 but then again, Roddick and Safin were number one before Fedal hit their primes.

 

[King No1e]

Clearly Agassi, even though he was irrelevant after 2005. Djokovic shouldn't even be in the discussion, he won one slam. Roddick won a slam and a ton of other tournaments as well. Safin/Hewitt won two majors as well.

Hewitt won a WTF and spent 2 years at #1 (including all 52 weeks in 2002, a feat that Nadal has never achieved and Djokovic only did once). IMO that's equal if not better than Andre's extra Slam.

 

[Third Serve]

Hewitt won a WTF and spent 2 years at #1 (including all 52 weeks in 2002, a feat that Nadal has never achieved and Djokovic only did once). IMO that's equal if not better than Andre's extra Slam.

Agassi also has five extra Masters going for him.

 

[Federev]

Agassi: 3 slams, 2 more slam finals, 6 masters titles, was no.1 at 33 and was competing well with the younger generations after him, both of which were much better than the last 2 younger generations of today.

Air tight. Next thread.

 

[NatF]

Agassi also has five extra Masters going for him.

Hewitt has two YEC though.

 

[Third Serve]

Hewitt has two YEC though.

Agassi has better win percentage, both in Slams and otherwise. But yeah, good point with the YEC. Do you think 2 YEC outweighs 5 Masters?

This kind of conversation really shows how close these guys are.

 

[NatF]

Agassi has better win percentage, both in Slams and otherwise. But yeah, good point with the YEC. Do you think 2 YEC outweighs 5 Masters?

This kind of conversation really shows how close these guys are.

Hewitt played for several years with injuries so I don't put much stock in his win/loss. I think two YE #1's and those YEC outweigh those masters - some of those Queens draws were probably as tough as masters too.

 

[metsman]

Safin did the coolest stuff but if we're purely counting beans it's between Hewitt and Agassi.

Masters I don't give a crap about, but I'd still go with Agassi

 

[metsman]

Roddick has an underrated case too, he contended in at least 1 slam in every year besides 00, 02, and 08 whereas Hewitt and Agassi were both done 06-09. Wasn't as good outside the slams, but in the slams there's definitely a decent case for him in terms of number of quality runs.

 

[clout]

Roddick has an underrated case too, he contended in at least 1 slam in every year besides 00, 02, and 08 whereas Hewitt and Agassi were both done 06-09. Wasn't as good outside the slams, but in the slams there's definitely a decent case for him in terms of number of quality runs.

It’s definitely between Agassi and Hewitt without a question. They both put up some very respectable numbers despite either being retired or out of the game in the second half of the decade.

Roddick was consistent but doesn’t have any numbers that stood out. His hey day was probably summer 03 when he swept the NA HC season and finished number one but after that, he became Federer’s little b**** (to put it bluntly) for the next decade. One can argue Djokovic had a more successful 2000s decade than Arod did.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic the highest peak, Roddick the most consistent.

 

[Lew II]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/20yo-djokovic-third-best-in-2000-08.651743/

 

[Lew II]

I'm sure even Murray in 2009 reached top4 ATP points of the decade.

USO final
WI semi
3 masters titles
1 masters final
4 other titles

Baby Big4 were already better than anyone from Fed's gen has ever been.

 

[Third Serve]

I'm sure even Murray in 2009 reached top4 ATP points of the decade.

USO final
WI semi
3 masters titles
1 masters final
4 other titles

Baby Big4 were already better than anyone from Fed's gen has ever been.

Well, it's easy to say that if you only focus on the stuff Murray and Djokovic did while glossing over anything the others did.